Defendant has brought this pre-answer motion for dismissal of the claim for
failure to assert a valid cause of action.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this
motion:

Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss Claim, Affirmation, with Exhibits 1,2

Affidavit in Opposition, with Exhibit 3

Filed Papers: Claim

In his filed claim, claimant seeks damages for wrongful confinement. Claimant
contends that he spent approximately 75 days[1]
in the Special Housing Unit at Oneida Correctional Facility, pursuant to a
misbehavior report issued against him and following a disciplinary hearing.

Claimant contends that the State had no reasonable grounds to issue a
misbehavior report against him, which provided the initial basis for his
confinement in the Special Housing Unit. He additionally contends that he was
not provided with a fair hearing in that the hearing officer was biased against
him, and that this officer suppressed exculpatory evidence and distorted
testimony against him.

Defendant contends that claimant has failed to state a cause of action based
upon the holding of the Court of Appeals in Arteaga v State of New York,
72 NY2d 212. In the Arteaga claim, the Court of Appeals held that
correction officers involved in the inmate disciplinary process are provided
absolute immunity for actions taken which are quasi-judicial in nature, provided
that such actions are within their authority and in compliance with governing
rules and regulations.

Based upon a review of the claim and the papers submitted on this motion, there
is no indication that either the hearing or administrative appeal were not done
in accordance with applicable rules and regulations of the Department of
Correctional Services. The initial confinement for investigation purposes was a
discretionary determination authorized by regulation (see,
7 NYCRR § 251-1.6[a]), the disciplinary hearing was timely
commenced and conducted, and claimant was released from the Special Housing Unit
upon the administrative reversal of the disciplinary disposition. Since it
therefore appears that the correction officers followed all applicable rules and
regulations, and acted in a quasi-judicial capacity, they must be afforded
absolute immunity for their actions (Arteaga v State of New York,
supra). Even though the disciplinary disposition was ultimately reversed
administratively, such fact does not give rise, in and of itself, to a
cognizable cause of action for money damages (Arteaga v State of New
York, supra; Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765).
Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.

Based upon the foregoing, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-65993 is hereby GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Claim No. 106660 is hereby DISMISSED.

February 26,
2003Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY, JR.Judge of the
Court of Claims

[1] Based upon the claim and papers before the
Court on this motion, it appears that claimant was initially placed in the
Special Housing Unit at Oneida Correctional Facility on February 1, 2002, and
that he was released from the unit on April 12, 2002 following reversal of the
superintendent's hearing.